The independence of Latin American nations

Données clés
Faculté	Lettres
Département	Département d’histoire générale
Professeur(s)	Aline Helg^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]
Cours	The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries

Lectures

The independence of Latin American nations was a complex process that was influenced by a variety of factors, including internal tensions within society, as well as external events such as the American and Haitian revolutions. The weakening or breakdown of the relationship between colonies and their European metropoles played a significant role in facilitating these independence movements.

The French Revolution had a significant impact on the independence movements in Latin America. The ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity that were central to the French Revolution resonated with many Latin American elites and intellectuals, who sought to establish similar values in their own countries. The French Revolution also weakened the power of the European colonial powers, as they were preoccupied with their own internal struggles, which created an opportunity for the colonies to assert their own independence. Additionally, the French Revolution led to the spread of revolutionary ideas and movements throughout the world, which also contributed to the emergence of the Latin American independence movements.

Languages

Español Français

The external cause

The invasion of the Iberian Peninsula by Napoleon in the early 19th century played a significant role in the independence of Latin American nations. The absence of a strong central authority in Spain and Portugal allowed for local leaders, such as Simon Bolivar, to rise up and claim independence for their respective countries.

The invasion by Napoleon in 1808 and the subsequent absence of King Ferdinand VII disrupted the traditional power dynamic between rulers and the governed in the Spanish colonies, , which led to the Peninsular War,. With the king unable to effectively govern, local leaders such as Simon Bolivar were able to step in and assert their own authority, eventually leading to the independence of their respective countries. Additionally, the weakness of the Spanish government during this time provided an opportunity for these leaders to gain support and mobilize their populations towards independence. In Brazil, the Portuguese royal family and their court fled to the colony in 1808, which helped to strengthen Brazilian identity and contributed to the country's eventual independence in 1822.

The demographic makeup of the colonies also played a significant role in the independence movements of Latin American nations. The large indigenous population and significant number of enslaved people were often oppressed and treated as second-class citizens by the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers. This led to discontent and ultimately, movements for independence from colonial rule. Additionally, the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and self-government also influenced the independence movements in Latin America.

The independence of Brazil

The independence of Brazil was set in motion in 1808 when Napoleon had already invaded Spain, the Prince Regent of Portugal Joao VI embarked with his family, court and administration for Brazil in an event known as the "Transfer of the Portuguese Court" in which between 10,000 and 150,000 people set sail on ships under British escort with the archives and treasure. This was done as the Prince Regent of Portugal, Joao VI, feared that the French would invade Portugal and wanted to protect the royal family, government officials, and the country's wealth. The arrival of the court in Brazil had a significant impact on the colony, as it led to an increase in trade and economic activity, and also marked the beginning of a period of autonomy for Brazil. In 1822, Prince Pedro, the son of the Prince Regent, declared Brazil's independence from Portugal, and he was subsequently crowned as the first emperor of Brazil.

From 1808 to 1821, the Portuguese Empire was ruled from Rio de Janeiro, where the royal court and government officials had relocated during the Napoleonic Wars. During this period, Brazil experienced significant economic and cultural growth, and the colony's elite began to develop a sense of autonomy. However, the relationship between the colony and the metropolis remained relatively peaceful until 1821, when King Joao VI decided to return to Lisbon and leave his son, Pedro, as the regent of Brazil. This decision caused tension between the Brazilian elite, who wanted to maintain their autonomy, and the Portuguese officials, who wanted to reassert control over the colony. This ultimately led to the declaration of Brazil's independence in 1822, with Pedro being declared as the first Emperor of Brazil.

The Brazilian elites were offended by the idea of returning to the situation before 1808, and they convinced Pedro I to stay in Brazil and become the independent emperor of the country. In 1822, Pedro I declared the independence of Brazil from Portugal and became the first emperor of the newly formed empire. However, Brazil remained a slave monarchy, and there was no social change. That is correct, slavery was still legal in Brazil and remained so until 1888. Despite the declaration of independence, the social and economic structure of the colony remained largely unchanged, with the elite continuing to hold power and the majority of the population, including enslaved Africans, remaining marginalized. The abolition of slavery would come later, in 1888, after a long and complex process.

The departure of the Portuguese royal family to Brazil. Anonymous painting, early 19th century.
King John VI of Portugal by Jean-Baptiste Debret.
Painting by Simplício Rodrigues de Sá, circa 1830.
Ferdinand VII as Prince of Asturias.

Continental Spanish America: from loyalty to the king to civil war (1810 - 1814)

In 1810, the Spanish colonies in America began to experience a wave of revolutionary movements, as local leaders sought to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the absence of a strong central government. These movements were initially focused on maintaining loyalty to the Spanish king and preserving the existing colonial system, but as the war between Spain and France dragged on, many leaders began to call for greater autonomy and independence from Spanish rule.

By 1814, the situation had devolved into open civil war, as different factions fought for control of the various colonies. Some sought to establish independent republics, while others sought to restore loyalty to the Spanish king or create new empires. The wars of independence led to the dissolution of Spanish Empire in America and emergence of various independent states.

Initially, after the fall of King Ferdinand VII, the cities in the Spanish colonies in America formed local juntas, or councils, to govern in his name during his absence. They invoked the principle that in the absence of the king, sovereignty rests with the people, but did not question the validity of royal power. They believed that the king would return and reassume control, so they were trying to maintain order and stability until that time. However, as the war between Spain and France dragged on and it became clear that the king would not return anytime soon, many of these local leaders began to demand greater autonomy and independence from Spanish rule. This led to the emergence of various revolutionary movements and eventually the wars of independence.

Swearing-in of the Cortes de Cádiz in the parish church of San Fernando. Presentation at the Congress of Deputies of Madrid.

The local juntas in the Spanish colonies in America were primarily composed of the elite of planters and merchants, both from the peninsular regions (people from Spain who had settled in the colonies) and Creole regions (people of Spanish descent born in the colonies). These juntas were formed to govern in the name of the king and maintain order until his return.

In Spain, a similar process occurred, with provincial juntas forming a Supreme Central Junta in Cadiz. This junta was intended to serve as a central governing body for the entire Spanish empire, including the colonies in America, and coordinate a war of liberation against Napoleon. The Junta in Cadiz was not invaded by Napoleon, so it considered itself as the legitimate government of Spain and its empire. However, the distance, lack of communication and the different interests between the Junta in Cadiz and the American Juntas made difficult to coordinate the war of liberation.

The Supreme Central Junta in Cadiz appointed a Regency Council as the legitimate government of the imprisoned King Ferdinand VII and sought to gain the support of the American colonies in their war against Napoleon. To this end, they recognized the principle of equality among the American provinces and sought to involve them in the government of the empire.

In 1810, under conditions of war and occupation by the French, the Supreme Central Junta hastily convened a National Assembly of delegates from the provinces of Spain, the Americas and Asia. This assembly was intended to represent the entire empire and provide a forum for the provinces to participate in the governance of the empire and coordinate the war of liberation. However, the National assembly was short-lived, and it was difficult to implement its decisions due to the distance and communication difficulties with the American colonies. Additionally, the American colonies had already started to develop their own movements for independence and self-government, which made it difficult for the Supreme Central Junta in Cadiz to maintain control over them.

The question of representation in the National Assembly quickly became a major issue, as it became clear that, based on population, Spain would have fewer delegates than the American colonies, which had a population of around 16 million. The Regency Council ultimately decided the debate, and at the Cortes, the American colonies were severely under-represented, with only 1/5 of the members. This decision posed a problem of legitimacy for the Cortes, as it was seen by many in the American colonies as a denial of their right to equal representation and self-government.

This lack of representation and the growing desire for self-rule in America led to the emergence of various revolutionary movements in the colonies. These movements, which were led by Creole elites, began to call for greater autonomy and eventually for full independence from Spain.

This underrepresentation of American colonies in the Cortes, and the subsequent lack of attention to their interests, was one of the key factors that led to the Wars of Independence in America.

The Cortes, which were convened by the Regency Council, did debate and ratify the Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy of 1812. This constitution applied to Spain and its territories in America and Asia, and it was intended to modernize and liberalize the government of the empire. The constitution established a parliamentary monarchy, with a reduced power of the king in favor of the Cortes, and it aimed to decentralize part of the administration and grant suffrage to all adult men without requiring them to be property owners or literate.

The Constitution of 1812 was a significant document in the history of Spain, as it attempted to grant greater political rights and representation to the people. However, it was not well received in America, where the colonies were not represented in the Cortes, and it was seen as a continuation of the same policies that had led to the Wars of Independence. Additionally, the Constitution was not implemented in the American colonies, as the revolutionary movements were already in motion and it was too late for it to have any meaningful impact on the situation.

The Constitution of 1812 did grant suffrage to all adult men, but it was limited to Spaniards, Indians, and mixed-race sons of Spaniards. This effectively excluded free people of African descent, known as Afro-Latin Americans, as well as people of mixed-race who did not conform to the principle of limpieza de sangre, which required that a person's ancestry be pure Spanish.

This exclusion of Afro-Latin Americans from political rights and representation was a major flaw in the Constitution of 1812, as they made up a significant portion of the population of the American colonies. It reinforced the already existing racial hierarchy and discrimination against people of color in the Spanish Empire, further marginalizing them and denying them equal rights and opportunities.

This exclusion of a significant portion of the population from political rights and representation was one of the factors that contributed to the Wars of Independence in America, as many people of color fought alongside the Creole elites for their rights and freedom.

The implementation of the Constitution of 1812 and the actions of the Regency Council were not well received in many of the American provinces, and it caused a division among them. Some provinces recognized the authority of the Cortes and the Regency Council, while others did not.

In some provinces, the Regency Council appointed new governors to neutralize the existing juntas, but many of these governors were not accepted by the local populations, and the juntas refused to recognize their authority. This led to a power struggle between the appointed governors and the existing juntas, with many provinces continuing to govern in the name of the king through their juntas.

This lack of acceptance and the division among the American provinces made it difficult for the Regency Council to maintain control over the colonies and further weaken their authority. It also hindered the efforts of the Regency Council to coordinate the war of liberation against Napoleon, as many provinces were focused on their own internal conflicts.

Additionally, this division and the lack of a unified effort among the American provinces, made it easier for the revolutionary movements to gain support and momentum, ultimately leading to the Wars of Independence in America.

In these cases they declare the Council of Regency illegitimate, expelling the new governors, and they declare that only they can legitimately govern in the absence of the king. Gradually these junta move from autonomy to the declaration of independence. However, some juntas remained loyal to the regency council.

From 1809 until 1814, there were not really wars of independence in Spanish America, but civil wars within each province between those who wanted to remain loyal to the council of regency and the king and those who wanted autonomy and independence. All these regions are in civil war.

Continental Spanish America: the diversity of independence processes (1814 - 1824)

In 1814, when Napoleon abandoned Spain and Ferdinand VII regained power, events would turn into real wars of independence. Ferdinand VII refused to make concessions rejecting the 1812 constitution and decided to use force to reconquer his colonies in the Americas by sending troops.

A process of reconquest is launched using force and brutal repression. The free Creoles in these viceroyalties will engage in independence struggles.

Mexico

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.

In Mexico, at the beginning there is a revolt started by a priest named Miguel Hidalgo, a white man born in Mexico who mobilizes against the Spanish exploiters called the "gachupines". He mobilized Spaniards, Indians and poor people to fight for a "fairer government".

The Catholic religion is extremely strong. On the ground, very quickly Hidalgo's troops occupied a large territory attacking the haciendas of the Creoles, becoming a class war that Hidalgo could not control.

Morelos por autor anónimo

The Creole elites are getting scared and join the cause of the Spanish crown. Hidalgo is arrested and executed. However, Jose Maria Morelos, an Afro-descendant priest and half-breed of modest origin, took up the torch with a programme of political independence, racial equality, land redistribution and, in particular, the abolition of slavery. But he is unable to control his troops leading to his arrest and execution.

Augustin I^er of Mexico.

The civil war inside Mexico continued until 1821 when a Mexican aristocrat Augustine De Iturbide declared independence and succeeded in forging an alliance between the supporters of Hidalgo and Morelos and the Creole elite against the Spaniards. Once Spain is defeated, Iturbide proclaims himself constitutional emperor of Mexico; it is a monarchy solution that will last only two years, but will protect the social hierarchy. However, this revolution remained independent.

Central America will win its independence without fighting, because it depended on the viceroyalty of the New Spain of Mexico.

Venezuela

The socio-racial issue complicates everything. If we look at the general map of the Americas, Venezuela is close to Haiti and all the sugar West Indies, which have a weight in the thinking of the elites.

Venezuela is a colony in which slavery is more developed than in Mexico, with slaves employed mainly on cocoa plantations, and there are also a very large number of freedmen of colour working in handicrafts in the cities. All this makes the elite fear a Haitian-style revolution.

The independence process is different from Mexico. At the very beginning, the junta declared independence in 1810. This declaration of independence did not excite the popular classes who were treated badly through elites, slavery and exploitation. The Spaniards who still had troops managed to mobilize the non-white plantar troops by denouncing their racism by mobilizing the llaneros, the slaves of the haciendas by promising them their freedom. The independentists are quickly overtaken by the troops raised by Spain.

Here too, we find ourselves in a situation of civil war. We are indebted to Simon Bolivar, who belongs to the cocoa aristocracy and is a slave trader, who understood that to win independence, it is necessary to have the support of the majority of the population who are poor, Indian and of African origin. He also knew that Spain, if it won, would not give equality to African descendants nor would it abolish slavery, as the 1812 Constitution had shown.

In 1813, he launched a war to the death of the Americans against the Spaniards without distinction of race. He trained racially indiscriminate military dignitaries promoting blacks and mulattos promising freedom to slaves who would fight for independence.

When Ferdinand VII returned to the throne, Bolivar was forced to flee with many of his troops and officers taking refuge in Haiti. Thanks to the help of Alexander Pétion, Bolivar was able to restart the war and unite the struggle of Venezuela with that of Colombia and Ecuador and gradually drive out the Spaniards to found a confederation of three nations called the Great Colombia that would exist until 1831.

Independence was declared in 1821 with very different regions united in this Great Colombia.

Rio de la Plata (Buenos Aires)

The only photograph of José de San Martín.

It should be seen that at that time around 1800 Buenos Aires was a small port only elevated to the rank of viceroyalty capital, but which learned to count on its strengths by rejecting the English who occupied it in 1807. A quarter of the population was Afro-descendant, another part was formed by military garrisons, gauchos.

Independence was quickly won in 1816 in Argentina. However, it was surrounded by the immense Brazil and the entire viceroyalty of Peru, which posed a threat for fear of an attack from the north. One of the main leaders of this movement Jose de San Martin decides with others to bring independence to the hinterland of Argentina, Chile and as far as Bolivia and Peru.

Peru

It is interesting to see that this is how Peru is going to gain its independence, caught between the troops coming from the South and the North. Independence will be imposed on Peru, the elites remain loyal to the king and Spain because they are afraid of the Indians like the revolt of Túpac Amaru.

It will only be in 1824 that the victory of Ayacucho brings independence and puts an end to Spanish colonialism.

Túpac Amaru, the last Inca of Vilcabamba.
The Battle of Ayacucho, by Martín Tovar y Tovar.

Consequences

Spain in 1824 is defeated on the American continent, but not in the Caribbean with Cuba which will become the "pearl of the West Indies" replacing Santo Domingo as supplier of sugar and Puerto Rico which will be under Spanish domination until 1898.

General considerations

It should be remembered that, unlike the Thirteen British Colonies and as in Haiti, it is a very long process of independence in Spanish America. From 1808, if we count the first juntas, or 1810 if we count the first revolutionary independence government, it lasted until 1828. Sixteen years of internal conflicts.

Spain waited until 1836 to recognize the independence of Mexico. One may ask why the conflict took so long:

it did not involve a war against the metropolis, but a kind of civil war that had a socioracional dimension within each viceroyalty. At the same time, royalists, autonomists and independentists were fighting each other.
The Spanish colonies, unlike the United States, did not receive any help from other nations except Haiti for Venezuela. On the other hand, the little they had in military aid was bought on credit from England. These nations are coming to independence with a fairly large foreign debt.

The costs of the war are not equal everywhere; it is very high in terms of human losses in Venezuela and on the Caribbean coast and Colombia, which have their populations declining; in terms of economic loss, Mexico loses the most, as all its mining infrastructure is destroyed. Argentina is getting out of the situation at a lower cost, which explains the more or less rapid start-ups.

One may wonder whether this is a real revolution:

we have a more or less massive mobilization of the population;
a struggle between different ideologies;
a concrete struggle for power;
we don't really have a deep transformation of social and economic structures.

The wars of independence were fought by white elites, but were fought by coloured troops, often of mixed race, black mulattoes and Indians. They are fought on a dominant ideology of freedom, equality and private property.

After independence, there is a great legal change, but not really a change in the socio-economic structures. Everywhere, republican regimes were adopted except for the Iturbid regime, while the nobility was abolished. All references to race in constitutions, laws and even censuses disappear; except for slaves, everyone is a citizen.

For the free Afro-descendants, it is a victory in the sense that they lose the defilement of slavery and gain equality of rights. For community Indians, it is a tragedy, because in the name of equality they lose their status as minors protected by the King of Spain, who prohibited the sale of their community property; now in the name of private property, their lands become alienable, gradually being taken over by haciendanos and small farmers. Many indigenous communities will disappear.

For most slaves there is no change except in Chile, Central America in 1824 and Mexico in 1829 partly because the Anglo-Saxons colonize northern Mexico and this is a way to stop the colonization of the northern United States.

Everywhere else except for the men who fought in the independence troops there are laws of gradual abolition, slavery will be abolished only in the period 1850 - 1860.

If the principle of equality makes the caste system disappear, the socio-racial hierarchy is not upset. There were new means of social mobility, especially in the army where a few half-breed women could move up the ranks. In fact, if it is no longer the accident of being born white, black or Indian, it is private property and formal education that will do so, but this does not mean that the counters will be set at zero, because racial ancestry will subsequently weigh in. Moreover, these populations will be so poor at the time of their independence that they will not be able to invest in education.

The new governments were not advocating the redistribution of land; it was being redistributed to the best buyers and not to the working classes.

Is there a formation of these different nations?

Yes, in the sense that founding myths are being created and that the independence movements have mixed the populations of the different regions in the armies, in addition we have the arrival of republican ideas that make us feel that we belong to a given homeland.
No, because the majority undergoes the process without taking part in it, one is often forcibly enrolled in the armies, moreover local identification remained strong. On the other hand, the borders of the new nations reproduce the same nations as before. The division is virtually the same as that of the viceroyalties in the colonial era, while the capitals of the viceroyalties continue to be the capitals of the independent nations.

Annexes

References

[1] Aline Helg - UNIGE

[2] Aline Helg - Academia.edu

[3] Aline Helg - Wikipedia

[4] Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com

[5] Aline Helg - Researchgate.net

[6] Aline Helg - Cairn.info

[7] Aline Helg - Google Scholar

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]